Whether a defendant's volitional conduct is required to establish direct copyright infringement

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The owner of a copyright holds the exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution, public display, and adaptation in his or her work. 17 U.S.C. § 106. Where a plaintiff establishes ownership of a work, any other party who violates those exclusive rights in the work has infringed the plaintiffs copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 501(a). This case asks the Court to resolve the following questions, which determine when a party may be held liable for direct infringements: 1. Whether a plaintiff must prove that a defendant engaged in some form of volitional conduct in order to prove direct copyright infringement, as described in Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo, Inc., 573 US. 431 (2014). 2. If so, whether that requirement is properly understood as (1) identical to common-law proximate causation, as the Ninth Circuit held here and as one member of the panel opined in BWP Media USA Inc. v. Polyvore, Inc., 922 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2019), or (2) a less demanding causation standard, as the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Circuits have held, or (3) requiring only an affirmative act with a meaningful connection to the infringement, as suggested by other members of the Second Circuit panel in Polyvore. 3. Whether a volitional conduct requirement insulates from liability for direct infringement defendants who create and maintain automated systems for making copies of content not requested by users, as the Ninth Circuit held, in conflict with this Court’s decision in Aereo and opinions of the D.C. and Second Circuits.